Binocularity in Bioethics—and Beyond: A Review of Erik Parens,Shaping Our Selves: On Technology, Flourishing, and a Habit of Thinking

Abstract

1Parens (2015) defends a habit of thinking he calls "binocularity," which involves switching between analytical lenses (much as one must switch between seeing the duck vs. the rabbit in Wittgenstein's famous example). Applying this habit of thought to a range of debates in contemporary bioethics, Parens urges us to acknowledge the ways in which our personal intuitions and biases shape our thinking about contentious moral issues. In this review of Parens's latest book, we reflect on our own position as participants in the so-called "enhancement" debates, where a binocular approach could be especially useful. In particular, we consider the case of "love drugs," a subject on which we have sometimes reached very different conclusions. We finish with an analogy to William James's (1907) distinction between "tenderminded" rationalists and "tough-minded" empiricists, and draw some general lessons for improving academic discourse.

Love drugs: Why scientists should study the effects of pharmaceuticals on human romantic relationships

“…For example, in response to the domestic abuse scenario, Diana Aurenque and Christopher McDougall (2013) wrote, "The first and most obviously justified intervention in [this] case is … not to drug the woman into unfeeling, but to alert the authorities to the violence and refer her to supportive social and legal services " (p. 35). This objection calls attention to the vital issues of social context and alternatives to drug-based interventions, which we have discussed at length in 1 Chiefly: Earp (2012); Earp, Sandberg, and Savulescu (2012); Wudarczyk, Earp, Guastella, and Savulescu (2013); Earp, Wudarczyk, Sandberg, and Savulescu (2013); Earp, Sandberg, Savulescu, and Andersen (2013); Robson and Earp (2014); ; Savulescu and Earp (2014); ; Savulescu (2015, 2016); Vierra and Earp (2015); Earp, Wudarczyk, Foddy, and Savulescu (in press); Earp, Foddy, Wudarczyk, and Savulescu (in press); Earp and Hauskeller (2016). 2 See Earp, Wudarczyk, Sandberg, and Savulescu (2013).…”